On 1/5/11 5:38 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>>>> I hear reports that the IAB will be focusing on the question of the RSE today
>> Correct.
>> For full transparency my goal for this meeting are:
>> - To make sure that there is a shared understanding among the IAB about the current proposal and its motivations.
> - Assess if there is support with the recommendations among the IAB, and make sure disagreements are understood.
> - Assess if there are aspects of the recommendations where the IAB thinks more clarity is needed: define actions to gain clarity
> - Assess whether a decision can be made expediently by getting to closure on the high level recomendations first.
> - Assess if the decision is rooted in an apparent consensus and there has been sufficient opportunity for the community to engage.
>> Obviously the decision needs to be grounded in what we collectively think is best for the RFC series and its community, and needs to be able to count on support of the folk that have to do the real work of implementing it.
>> Note that there is no explicit goal to make the actual decision today.
>> Personally I still have doubts about the last point. Primarily given the timing of the appearance of the docs and its interference with the holiday season but also because I've heard that some folk find it difficult to come to this list with a contrarian view. That is unfortunate, but this list is the only place where they can go on record.
I will now publicly express a concern that I have expressed privately to
many of the parties involved, but to no avail: we have heard barely
anything substantial from the individuals on the RSAG, the people who
are closest to the center of this decision. Other than some thoughtful
contributions from Brian and Bob Hinden, the other RSAG members
responses have been meta-responses about how the community is supposed
to be discussing this. Many RSAG members haven't said anything on this list.
In my discussions with some RSAG members I know, they made it clear that
there is no RSAG consensus. That's fine, but it sounded like there were
some strongly-held views among the members based on what they have seen
over the years, and particularly this year. We're not hearing those in
this discussion, even though RSAG members have much more experience with
the issues than the rest of us. As Glenn has said many times, the RSAG
has seen much of what he is doing as he does it, whereas most of us have
not.
(If I'm wrong here and the RSAG members have reported to the IAB, I
apologize. However, reading such a report would be useful to the rest of
us who are supposed to be discussing the proposal.)
--Paul Hoffman